Deep levels of processing elicit a distinctiveness heuristic: Evidence from the criterial recollection task

Thinking about the meaning of studied words (deep processing) enhances memory on typical recognition tests, relative to focusing on perceptual features (shallow processing). One explanation for this levels-of-processing effect is that deep processing leads to the encoding of more distinctive representations (i.e., more unique semantic or conceptual features that can be recollected to differentiate the words). This recollective distinctiveness hypothesis predicts that deep processing should reduce false recognition errors, because expecting more distinctive recollections can facilitate retrieval monitoring accuracy (i.e., a distinctiveness heuristic). We report several experiments confirming this prediction, while ruling out explanations based on familiarity or overall memory strength. Additional support for the distinctiveness hypothesis was that a manipulation designed to selectively enhance the distinctiveness of words in the shallow condition eliminated the levels-of-processing effect on false recognition. These findings suggest that conceptual processing can elicit the distinctiveness heuristic, and that recollective distinctiveness drives levels-of-processing effects.

[1]  Daniel L. Schacter,et al.  Suppressing False Recognition in Younger and Older Adults: The Distinctiveness Heuristic ☆ ☆☆ ★ , 1999 .

[2]  E. Tulving Memory and consciousness. , 1985 .

[3]  F. Craik,et al.  Levels of processing: A framework for memory research , 1972 .

[4]  B. Bergum,et al.  Attention and Performance VI , 1978 .

[5]  L. Jacoby,et al.  On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[6]  Daniel L. Schacter,et al.  Reducing memory errors: The distinctiveness heuristic. , 2006 .

[7]  Michael Wilson,et al.  MRC psycholinguistic database: Machine-usable dictionary, version 2.00 , 1988 .

[8]  John D. Bransford,et al.  Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing , 1977 .

[9]  Daniel L Schacter,et al.  Aging can spare recollection-based retrieval monitoring: the importance of event distinctiveness. , 2007, Psychology and aging.

[10]  D. Schacter,et al.  “If I had said it I would have remembered it: Reducing false memories with a distinctiveness heuristic , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[11]  D. Gallo Associative Illusions of Memory: False Memory Research in DRM and Related Tasks , 2006 .

[12]  Jeffrey P. Toth,et al.  Conceptual automaticity in recognition memory: levels-of-processing effects on familiarity. , 1996, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[13]  Glen E. Bodner,et al.  Generation and mnemonic encoding induce a mirror effect in the DRM paradigm , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[14]  C. Perfetti,et al.  Encoding task and recognition memory: The importance of semantic encoding. , 1973 .

[15]  V. Coltheart Recognition errors after incidental learning as a function of different levels of processing. , 1977 .

[16]  J. Worthen,et al.  Distinctiveness and memory. , 2006 .

[17]  J. Wixted,et al.  On the difference between strength-based and frequency-based mirror effects in recognition memory. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[18]  J. Seamon,et al.  “If I didn’t write it, why would I remember it?” Effects of encoding, attention, and practice on accurate and false memory , 2003, Memory & cognition.

[19]  Daniel L. Schacter,et al.  Reducing false recognition with criterial recollection tests: Distinctiveness heuristic versus criterion shifts , 2004 .

[20]  F. Craik,et al.  Levels of Pro-cessing: A Framework for Memory Research , 1975 .

[21]  W. P. Wallace,et al.  Incidental learning : The influence of associative similarity and formal similarity in producing false recognition , 1968 .

[22]  T. S. Hyde,et al.  Differential effects of incidental tasks on the organization of recall of a list of highly associated words. , 1969 .

[23]  F. Craik,et al.  Interaction between encoding and retrieval operations in cued recall. , 1977 .

[24]  Michael A. McDaniel,et al.  The generation effect: A meta-analytic review , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[25]  A. Yonelinas The Nature of Recollection and Familiarity: A Review of 30 Years of Research , 2002 .

[26]  Max Coltheart,et al.  The MRC Psycholinguistic Database , 1981 .

[27]  K. McDermott,et al.  The importance of material-processing interactions in inducing false memories , 2005, Memory & cognition.

[28]  Barry S. Stein,et al.  Depth of processing reexamined: The effects of the precision of encoding and test appropriateness , 1978 .

[29]  John G. Seamon,et al.  Memory performance and subject-defined depth of processing , 1978 .

[30]  H Intraub,et al.  Levels of processing and picture memory: the physical superiority effect. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[31]  R. Reed Hunt,et al.  Presentation modality affects false memory , 1998 .

[32]  H. Roediger,et al.  Explaining dissociations between implicit and explicit measures of retention: A processing account , 1989 .

[33]  Caren M. Rotello,et al.  Memory strength and the decision process in recognition memory , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[34]  K. McDermott,et al.  False recall and false recognition induced by presentation of associated words: Effects of retention interval and level of processing , 2001, Memory & cognition.

[35]  F. Craik,et al.  Levels of Processing in Human Memory , 1979 .

[36]  R. Marsh,et al.  Test formats change source-monitoring decision processes , 1998 .

[37]  Lisa Geraci,et al.  Processing approaches to cognition: The impetus from the levels-of-processing framework , 2002, Memory.

[38]  Daniel L. Schacter,et al.  When False Recognition Meets Metacognition: The Distinctiveness Heuristic , 2002 .

[39]  David A. Balota,et al.  The Word-Frequency Mirror Effect in Young, Old, and Early-Stage Alzheimer's Disease: Evidence for Two Processes in Episodic Recognition Performance , 2002 .

[40]  G. Davies,et al.  Attribute Coding at Different Levels of Processing , 1976 .

[41]  Morris Moscovitch,et al.  Depth of processing, retrieval cues, and uniqueness of encoding as factors in recall , 1976 .

[42]  J. R. Vokey,et al.  Illusory Recollection and Dual–Process Models of Recognition Memory , 2004, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[43]  R. Marsh,et al.  An alternative conceptualization to memory "Strength" in reality monitoring , 1999 .

[44]  F. Craik,et al.  Depth of processing and the retention of words , 1975 .

[45]  Matthew G. Rhodes,et al.  Modes of cognitive control in recognition and source memory: Depth of retrieval , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[46]  E. Hirshman,et al.  Decision processes in recognition memory: criterion shifts and the list-strength paradigm. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[47]  Mary Ann Foley,et al.  Cognitive operations and decision bias in reality monitoring , 1981 .